Kerala High Court
Suresh @ Thavala Rejoy vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
2025:KER:69363
Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 93 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2014 IN Crl.A NO.341
OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2010 IN CC NO.325 OF
2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/1st APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
SURESH @ THAVALA REJOY
AGED 32 YEARS
REJOY, S/O SURENDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, FLAT
NO.514,RAJAJI NAGAR, SECRETARIAT, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2025:KER:69363
Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2017
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE( PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY EHARD ON
17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69363
Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2017
3
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is
the conviction and sentence rendered against the
revision petitioner under Section 380 of IPC.
2. The revision petitioner is the first
accused in C.C.No.325 of 2007 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram. He stood trial before that
court for committing an offence punishable under
Section 380 r/w 34 of IPC, along with the second
accused.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 20.08.2007
at about 5.00 a.m, the accused two in number in
furtherance of their common intention entered into
the building of ICFAI National College and
committed theft of a cordless phone, 5 brass
pressure valves, two plastic hose caps, 2 brass
2025:KER:69363
hose connectors, brass nozzle etc. totally worth
Rs.1,600/-.
4. The trial court, after elaborately
considering the evidence on record and hearing both
sides, found the first accused guilty of committing
an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and
convicted him thereunder. But it also found the
second accused not guilty of the offence alleged
and acquitted him thereunder. The trial court
sentenced the first accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 380 of IPC, with a
default clause.
5. The first accused carried the matter in
appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.341 of 2010 before
the Additional Sessions Court-V,
Thiruvananthapuram. The said court, by judgment
2025:KER:69363
dated 09.07.2014, dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Perused the records.
7. The evidence on record shows that PW1, who
was the security officer in ICFAI National College
has given evidence to the effect that on 20.08.2007
at about 5.00 a.m, he had heard a noise on the 3 rd
floor of the building and on rushing to the place,
had seen the first accused disconnecting the brass
fittings in the pipe, after breaking the glass.
PW1 detained the first accused and took him to the
ground floor. Upon hearing the hue and cry, persons
nearby assembled there and the police party which
came there, took the accused into custody. PW1 also
identified MO1 to MO6 as the articles thieved by
the accused. It is to be noted that the recitals in
2025:KER:69363
Ext.P1 FI Statement which was lodged immediately
after the incident also tallies in material
particulars with the evidence of PW1 regarding the
incident. Further, the evidence of PW2, who is the
Principal of the said college and who had reached
the spot immediately after the incident also
supports the evidence of PW1 regarding the
incident. As rightly found by the trial court and
the appellate court, the evidence tendered by PW1
and PW2 and as discussed afore inspires confidence
in the mind of the court and I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of
evidence done by these courts and in reaching a
conclusion of guilt against the 1st accused.
8. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner at this stage prayed that considering
the age of the 1st accused, the fact that the
2025:KER:69363
incident has taken place in the year 2007 and the
fact that the accused has no criminal antecedents,
the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced. The
learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this
submission and submitted that as per the report
dated 22.02.2017, received from the SHO Cantonment
Police Station, the revision petitioner has
reformed considerably and has not been involved in
any crime during the interregnum.
9. Hence, considering the submissions made at
the bar, the young age of the 1st accused, the fact
that the incident has taken place in the year 2007,
the chances for reformation of the 1st accused and
the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of
the view that while upholding the conviction, the
sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner/first
accused can be modified and reduced to one of
2025:KER:69363
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 380 of
IPC. But, I am also of the view that no
interference is required with the default sentence
imposed.
In the result, this criminal revision petition
is allowed in part, as follows;
(i) The conviction of the revision
petitioner/first accused in C.C.No.325 of 2007 by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III,
Thiruvananthapuram and as affirmed by the
Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram in
Crl.Appeal No.341 of 2010 is upheld.
(ii) The sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/first accused is modified and reduced
to one of simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
2025:KER:69363
Section 380 IPC.
(iii) In case of default in payment of fine,
the revision petitioner/first accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of one
month.
(iv) Set off is also granted.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Scl/
